Should it be called "preparing" or "prepping" for the PE (Principles and Practice of Engineering) Exam?

If you've studied for the exam and spent hours and hours covering thousands of pages of material - it just might feel more like "prepping" for doomsday more than anything else. The required references for 2019 alone now cover 9 different books, 12 volumes and over 6,500 pages.

This week I'm covering a review of the 2018 exam and some updates to 2019 for the Fire Protection PE Exam.

Discouraging 2018 Results

The overall results from all 241 examinees came in December, and the results were not great.

Pass rates for first-time examinees fell to 56%, the lowest this decade. The pass rate for repeat takers also fell to 28%, the lowest rate since 2015. These results are published annually by NCEES.

4th Toughest Exam for First-Timers

We once again maintain a distinction for having one of the most difficult exams to pass. The 56% pass rate for first time examinees ranks 4th toughest of the 24 different PE disciplines, behind only software, civil (construction), and power systems.

The overall pass rate (first-time and repeat takers combined) isn't much better with fire protection having the 7th most difficult pass rate.

On a related note one of the adjacent fields where some people working in fire protection get their PE is mechanical and architectural. Architectural used to have an overall pass rate above 80%, but that appears to no longer be the case. The Mechanical PE on Thermal & Fluid Systems has an overall pass rate of 60%, higher than fire protection but not by a large degree.

Raw Cut Score about 70%

With the popularity of the Weekly Exam Series (a 20-week series of mini-exams for Fire Protection PE examinees), I've gathered significantly better analytics on the difficulty of the actual exam and how well studying translates to passing the exam.

We're now able to better estimate the raw cut score (the percentage of questions correct to pass the exam), and how the difficulty of the Weekly Exams compares to the actual exam.

From the 2018 exam, we've estimated an overall raw cut score of 69-70%.

MeyerFire User Pass Rates

The statistic I love and get asked about more than anything is what the pass rates are for people buying the PE Prep Guide and what the pass rates are for people doing the Weekly Exams.

In short, it is very difficult to calculate this value now that the Prep Guide has become so popular. Consider this - on the 2018 exam over 2 out of every 3 examinees had the 2018 edition in their hand when they took the exam. Many who didn't have the 2018 edition brought a copy of the 2017.

In concept, if nearly everyone has a copy of the book on the actual exam, then it becomes more of a prerequisite to taking the exam than it does a boost only to the person using it. Where I have found differentiation, though, is between examinees who get a copy, study early, and study thoroughly. Somewhat obviously - the best prepared tend to do better on the actual exam.

As for pass rates of the Weekly Exam - I'm trying hard to get those exact values. If you used the Weekly Exam Series in 2018, I would be very grateful to hear from you and how the test went.

While I've reached out to everyone, I still haven't heard from the following users: Pepe Sylvia, GingerSnap, RoundONE, JT, Ginger, AB, JDB Falcon, onebadshark, MAXCRYPT, Senior, Old Guy, Ryan, Tip Top, na, dot dot dot, and yeass. [if you can't tell, we have a lot of fun on the Weekly Exam Series]

If you're one of these people, please shoot me an email at jdmeyer@meyerfire.com. Your input helps craft future editions and support success for others going forward.

A Checklist of Resources

Are you planning to take the 2019 exam? If so, you'll want to see our list of every resource we know to be available to you. The list includes formula sheets, practice exams, reference materials, Prep Books, Study Communities, and Courses. It's all here: https://www.meyerfire.com/pe-tools.html

Changes to the 2019 PE Exam

​Once again the exam writers can't help but make tweaks between each edition of the PE Exam. While published articles as old as five years ago suggested a narrowing of required references down to just the NFPA and SFPE handbooks, the actual exam references have done anything but condense.

Here's the year to year changes, with edition, additions or subtracted changes highlighted.

The 2019 PE Prep Guide Release

Fortunately this year, SFPE released the required references earlier than in years past. As a result the 2019 PE Prep Guide, which usually would ship in June, will ship earlier. At this time I'm estimating a mid-may shipment of these editions for anyone who pre-orders a copy. Of course if you'd rather get a copy in your hands now, we still have the 2018 edition available.

Weekly Exam Prep Series

Back for a third year the Weekly Exam Prep Series will kick off June 3rd. If you're looking to get as much regular practice as is available anywhere in a fun exam-simulated pace, then this is for you. See where you rank and get access to over 400 questions with the Weekly Exams. Learn more about the Weekly Exam Prep Series here.

2019 vs. 2020 Exam

Big changes are ahead for the 2020 exam. Not only will the Fire Protection PE Exam transition to a computer-based exam, but the legacy of bringing in volumes and volumes of references will go away as well. As we understand it today, there will be a single, condensed reference book with formulas and charts that can be used on the exam - and that's it. It'll be a different delivery, different problem types, and a different reference.

It'll be a big change and without a doubt make 2020 examinees feel like guinea pigs in the sense of trying out something new to everyone involved (examinees, the exam writers, and prep material producers). That could be intimidating or could be an opportunity depending upon how you look at it.

Know someone interested in taking the PE Exam? Feel free to send them this article today.

Why is it that SFPE isn't using the latest edition of the codes and standards? That seems nuts to me because in most of my work they require me use the latest codes. I don't think it really helps me a whole lot to know outdated codes and standards.

They even went back to 2014 from 2017 version of NFPA 25?! It's 2019 for crying out loud.

Should I prep for the exam using the referenced codes or the current codes?

Thoughts?

Reply

Joe

5/6/2019 08:14:06 am

I'm right there with you Derrick! I'd recommend using their referenced code versions. While it's unlikely it'll make a difference on the exam itself, it's better to be safe than do carry doubt about the materials you have with you while taking the exam.

Reply

Derrick

5/6/2019 08:23:49 am

So that means I'm going to have to spend extra time/money/hassle to get the old codes. My company has the NFCSS through NFPA, but they're electronic and I have to get them to hard-copy format. I hate to say or imply this anyway, but it almost feels like SFPE is trying to add to theirs and NFPA's pockets by requiring the old references, just my opinion.

SFPE works with NCEES and the PE Exam Development Committee to regularly update exam information. The reference for NFPA 25 has been updated to include the 2017 edition and NFPA 92 to include the 2015 edition. It takes time both for the exam and jurisdictions to update to the newest editions of standards. There are only a few jurisdictions that move immediately to new standards.

The exam references are often tied to when the question was last revised in the data bank. The committee spends much time updating the questions to newer editions, however, there are occasions where that process is slower than desired.

Reply

Derrick Shaver

5/9/2019 08:11:57 am

The committee should understand that referencing old revisions of the codes means the examinees will have to spend more money to buy the codes...which aren't cheap. I would think most of the examinees are taking the exam as soon as they gain the experience required and weren't around for earlier revisions. This is a major expense once you add up the enormous amount of required references. Which the examinees won't be able to use in their regular job and have to buy the current codes...double the expense.

If it is against when it was last revised in the data bank...why not update the question in the data bank to reflect more current codes. Go to a more current code edition (or at least the previous one), find the same paragraph, section, etc, in the current code and find out what it says. I feel like that wouldn't take a terrible amount of time since they are the experts.

Does that mean next year a reference could be from 2010 (being sarcastic...but not really)?

Reply

JOE MEYER

5/9/2019 08:33:38 am

Victoria,

Thanks for your hard work in compiling this information as well as support multiple organizations in their efforts with the exam. Having the "either/or" options for standard editions does give examinees options to use resources that they are more likely to already have. I am sure the process is pretty exhaustive and not to mention completed by many different volunteers.

Reply

Derrick Shaver

5/11/2019 09:08:51 am

Joey...you bring up a good point. I obviously don't understand all the effort that goes into the preparing the exam and updating questions to reflect the codes and I'm sure the committee isn't getting handsomely rewarded for their efforts. I apologize for being so harsh earlier, it's just frustrating trying to gather/purchase multiple references just to purchase them again the next year.

Complaining isn't practical...my fault

Joe Meyer

5/11/2019 07:38:12 pm

Derrick,

It happened to follow it but my comment wasn't in reference to yours. I was very frustrated myself with the exam experience when I took it, and it seems like that time in my life (as is many peoples') when I took the exam was some of the tightest-budget years I've had. The more consistent and predictable the references are year-to-year the better it is for everybody, but I think there are a lot of changes happening quickly right before the big switch with the 2020 exam changes. I was just saying that it would be hard working through a committee of volunteers to organize and create exam content and I appreciated Victoria's clarity here - I wasn't trying to undermine your frustration.